Richard Syrett

[WOTR]

Don't blame me. I tried to call in but the lines were all busy.

This place is slipping... Nobody has even mentioned my choice of the world soul... Oh well.

If you had managed to get through I would download it just to hear you tear them a new one.

[WOTR]

First one to post tonight?  The first half about the Canadian banking lawsuit was actually pretty good.  The second half, I cannot be bothered to listen to.

[136 or 142]

First one to post tonight?  The first half about the Canadian banking lawsuit was actually pretty good.  The second half, I cannot be bothered to listen to.

The most interesting connection between that guest and former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau is that neither have much understanding of basic economics.

These first two links are actually from right wing organizations, one Canadian and one American, but they both explain mainstream economic theory:

1.On why government borrowing from a central bank would cause inflation (and currency collapse):
http://www.taxpayer.com/blog/why-doesn-t-the-bank-of-canada-just-print-money-to-pay-off-our-national-debt

The basic argument is that borrowing from a central bank requires that bank to (indirectly) print money.  Printing money expands the money supply and that results in inflation and currency decline.

For those who argue that the United States printed around $3.5 trillion during 'quantitative easing' and that didn't result in a spike in inflation, that is true, but if you check total U.S bank assets, you'll see that they've actually remained fairly stable since the start of 'quantitative easing'
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/

2.On his claim that inflation has been higher since the Bank of Canada stopped lending money to the Government of Canada

This is actually one of my favorite things to study in economics as it pertains to the debate that occurred in the 1970s between the Monetarists and the Keynesians.
On this, the monetarists were completely correct.  For those who lived through the 1970s and into some of the 1980s you'll remember rising inflation and stagflation.  There are the pseudo-economists on the sort of right  like Ron Paul who blame the U.S going off the gold standard for those twin related nightmares, and there are the pseudo-economists on the left who blame the OPEC oil embargo for those twin related nightmares.  But this is the view from mainstream economists and it's almost certainly the correct view (not that those two other things couldn't have contributed very slightly.)

I can understand why people are drawn to those pseudo-economist 'theories' though as gold and oil are exciting while the Phillips Curve and the Expectation Hypothesis of Inflation aren't.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PhillipsCurve.html

That article is also a primer for explaining a great deal of the events of the 1970s.

The upshot is that once the previously followed Keynesian understanding of the Phillips Curve (there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.  For a little more inflation you can have a little less unemployment)  was replaced by the Monetarist view that this trade-off works, at best, only in the very short term, and that after that you wind up with the same level of unemployment with a higher level of inflation, inflation has been held by central banks, for the most part, in both Canada and the United States at around 2% per year for the better part of 25 years.  As an aside, this 2% figure is deliberately chosen as their are sound reasons to believe that a little inflation is a good thing for an economy.

In the United States, officially your Federal Reserve is still required by its enabling legislation from Congress to follow the 'dual mandate' of pursuing both low and stable inflation at the same time as pursuing 'full employment.'  However, here in Canada, in 1991 our Parliament passed legislation that the Bank of Canada's sole mandate was to target inflation control within a band of 1-3% per year.
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/indicators/key-variables/inflation-control-target/

3.On the claim of the economist who called in who said that the guests' claim was wrong regarding Canada only borrowing from its central bank. I'm not sure who is correct, but my guess would be it was the caller.

History of Canadian bonds:
1953 - Fully registered bonds
"Acting as an agent of the Government of Canada, the Bank of Canada paid the annual interest directly to the bond holder.
http://www.csb.gc.ca/history/

I'm not 100% certain what they mean by 'agent' but the Bank of Canada now refers to itself as the 'fiscal agent' for the Canadian government, and in that they mean "This role includes multiple responsibilities, such as Banker and Treasury Manager, managing Canada’s foreign exchange reserves and retail (domestic) debt, and providing advice to Canada’s Department of Finance on the retail debt program."

So, my guess is that the Bank of Canada paid the annual interest with money it received from the government of Canada that the government received through taxation, and not that the Bank of Canada printed the money to pay the interest.  If that is the case, then the caller was correct and the guest was wrong.

The entire time I was listening to the program the voice of my first economics instructor kept repeating in my head: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

I was extremely disappointed that should this case ever get to trial and the guest win it on behalf of his client, that nobody asked the obvious question:  I previously mentioned here how the Government of Canada changed the previous 'dual mandate' of the Bank of Canada in 1991 to one where the sole mandate of the Bank would be 'inflation targeting' So, given that the precedent of the Government of Canada to change the Banks' mandate is fully established, if the guest is correct about the Bank of Canada having a role in being the 'interest free' lender to the government and the government loses the court case, what would prevent the government from merely rewriting the legislation to remove that role from the mandate of the Bank?

[expat]

Canadian constitutional law. Worst. C2C. Ever.

[136 or 142]

Canadian constitutional law. Worst. C2C. Ever.

How can you say it was worse than most of Noory's shows?

[WOTR]

The most interesting connection between that guest and former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau is that neither have much understanding of basic economics....

I probably should have specified what I meant when I said that he was interesting.  The fact that there is a court case is interesting.  The idea that there is some basis in law to force Canadians to borrow from our central bank is interesting (it sounds like it has survived one or two attempts to get it tossed).

The practice of having a any of our recent governments able to print an unlimited supply of money without any penalty (yes, there would be penalties- but, apparently, not in the form of interest rates, just currency destruction and the likes) scares me.  I can actually see the appeal if there were a responsible party in power- but I cannot think of one in my lifetime that I would trust  And history has shown us that people will vote in whoever they feel will give them the most.  With no limit on what I can spend (and too few people able to actually grasp the destruction that such actions would cause) I would be Prime Minister tomorrow with a promise of paying off all residential mortgages and 0% borrowing for the masses.

It was just an interesting guest who appears to actually be doing something.  I may not agree with his views, nor would I necessarily desire the same outcome as him.  However, it was fun to listen to (and I really have to look up Rick Hilliard (sp?)... I believe the guest mentioned him as being involved in some manner with the case.)

[RickySsan]

Canadian constitutional law. Worst. C2C. Ever.

Having a heard time staying awake with what's happening on your side of the border.. yawn, well off to feed my beavers and then to my igloo for a nice bit of seal blubber..

[Nebraska888]

Having a heard time staying awake with what's happening on your side of the border.. yawn, well off to feed my beavers and then to my igloo for a nice bit of seal blubber..

Agreed!!

[AvDaBr]

Richard's first guest says "okay?" way too much.

[lurkernerge]

Richard's first guest says "okay?" way too much.

seriously...  "okay?  ya know?  okay, okay?"

shit is irritating. 

[Zetaspeak]

I logged on just to mention it hard to focus on the topic when the guest keeps dropping okay !!! all......... the .......... time lol

he just give an "okay, alright, okay"

If anybody can listen back and give me a total number of okays, that would be great. Okay 

[AvDaBr]

I logged on just to mention it hard to focus on the topic when the guest keeps dropping okay !!! all......... the .......... time lol

he just give an "okay, alright, okay"

If anybody can listen back and give me a total number of okays, that would be great. Okay 

Haha, you beat me to the trifecta report- that was impressive.  Honestly I wish I would have kept count.  He has to be in the neighborhood of 50.

[AvDaBr]

If nothing else this guest very possibly, even probably, uttered the same word more in one hour than any guest in Coast to Coast AM history.

[lurkernerge]

Haha, you beat me to the trifecta report- that was impressive.  Honestly I wish I would have kept count.  He has to be in the neighborhood of 50.

I stopped counting after 40, but that was in like 10 minutes.  He dropped at least 6 times that many.

[pate]

Richard is on tonight, eh?

I will take a listen, I haven't finished my half-pint daily ration yet.

Just tuned in to hear commercials/news top-of-the-hour stuff.  I guess if it isn't great radio I can always pass out.

Cheers!

[AvDaBr]

I lost count after 40, but that was in like 10 minutes.  He dropped at least 6 times that many.

To put this in perspective, it probably takes Noory a month to offer "amazing!" that often.

[lurkernerge]

I guess if it isn't great radio I can always pass out.

Next guest sounds interesting, from the description anyway.

[Zetaspeak]

It seems like an interesting topic, but the guest speech tick really throws me off.

I not even picky about speech as I am used to different accents, and even mispronunciations (that's right, I don't mind the Noory speechisms as much as most here seem to do lol) 

But stuff like adding okay after every sentence throws me off. It reminds me of a women who I know who said "you know" after every sentence. After a while it made my head spin.

[pate]

My gawd, it was refreshing to hear the Alabama Shakes bumper on C2C.  I like that song...

I take back all the bad things I've said about Richard.

Richard for full-time C2C host 2016!

[lurkernerge]

Speaking of new artists kickin it old school...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlYgTU1QAjE

Sturgill Simpson. 

[TigerLily]

If nothing else this guest very possibly, even probably, uttered the same word more in one hour than any guest in Coast to Coast AM history.

I remember some English bloke that said "yeah, right" at the end of every sentence. Don't remember his name or topic but do remember how annoying it was. Yeah, right? Okay!.

Hope this guest is decent

[pate]

Speaking of new artists kickin it old school...

...

Sturgill Simpson.

I dig that song.

I am horrible with musical artists, but he sounds like some old-school country singer to me.  Not Merle.

ediot:  Why it immediately reminded me of this sort-a throwback song, I dunno:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYF0qU5WSew

[Zetaspeak]

The okay guy lasted only one hour. I thought the show was going to be split half an half but I guess not.

I am going to get going. Everyone have a good night.

[AvDaBr]

I dig that song.

I am horrible with musical artists, but he sounds like some old-school country singer to me.  Not Merle.

ediot:  Why it immediately reminded me of this sort-a throwback song, I dunno:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYF0qU5WSew

To me he (Simpson) sounds, and looks, like Joe Diffie.

[lurkernerge]

To me he (Simpson) sounds, and looks, like Joe Diffie.

lol, sweet mullet:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I51JXpcLwk

jams though.

[pate]

Dig that bumper too, Richard.

"... I gotta love that keeps me waiting, Ima lonely boi ..."

I'd google it, but already know the song...

ediot: Ah hell, what else do I have to do?  Richard played this one:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV5OGh8D-ok

As Bruce Campbell might say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziQhZbJZ0W4

[anunnaki]

FREE BEE  Why rent for $1.99 when it's free on "You Tube" ?

UFOs Angels & Gods -- Alien Abductions explained

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U29sRC0pD2Q

[Taco Bell]

Good show tonight, so far a Roswell debunker, a lot of good points. Callers trying to lay onto the guest, he's shooting them down with logical points. Manson stuff up next.

[Uncle Duke]

Good show tonight, so far a Roswell debunker, a lot of good points. Callers trying to lay onto the guest, he's shooting them down with logical points. Manson stuff up next.

Agreed, Randal Montgomery was an excellent guest.  I'd never heard him before, but he pretty much espoused my thoughts on Roswell.  I found it noteworthy he questioned the integrity of Maj Jesse Marcel, claiming Marcel had exaggerated his military record/achievements, and therefore perhaps his Roswell story, over the years.  Most serious Roswell aficionados hang their hat on the credibility of Marcel, he being the "intelligence officer for the world's only atomic bomb unit" at the time of the Roswell incident.  I look foward to reading Montgomery's book to see his documentation relative to Marcel's history of "BSing".  If he can support this claim, the story's best asset will take it in the shorts.

[zeebo]

Just noticed RS has the usually-entertaining R. A. Miller on for the first half tonite.  Topics may include super soldiers, multi-dimensional physics, organic farming, or who-knows-what.